Thursday's Worcester News letters, including: Time to give up over stadium

SIR - Now that it appears that the WCFC stadium application has finally failed, it just remains for the supporters trust and all those committed to the cause to accept defeat and try to move forward.

I’m one who was brought up with the Blues and it really saddens me to see them in this plight.

There’s a salutary lesson in there.

In hindsight losing their spiritual home was ultimately the downfall of this once proud club.

Many clubs have been in a far worse position, the obvious difference being if you have somewhere to put the goalposts there will always be a game. I’ve found it a very negative campaign.

Cities are places for people and to vote against something that not only publicises the namesake but also encourages footfall to the area seems contrary to commercial agenda.

We can live without a club, but I think the experience will be poorer without one.

Kenneth Powell

Worcester

'...No, we need to fight this'

SIR - So the Planning Committee has again voted on party political lines re the new stadium.

Am I alone in finding this strange, as it seems to me that the proposal should clearly be a non political issue?

Assuming that your paper has quoted Gareth Jones correctly then his statement that the planning officer’s report was biased in favour of acceptance is shameful, implying that the Council appointed officer (the expert in planning law) has not presented a non-partisan recommendation based on that law.

The Councillor is entitled to disagree, but surely not to call his integrity into question.

Neither should David Clayton’s letter 21 July go unchallenged.

Where is his evidence of anti social behaviour & litter and is the area currently a dark sky location? It’s news to me if it is.

Certainly traffic will increase for short periods and there will be noise and extra light for short periods, but I suggest he considerably overstates the impact.

As for the loss of a beautiful place the implication is that the whole of the current green space will be lost, which is simply not the case, as he should know.

My hope is that this perverse decision will be successfully appealed and if that results in the Council meeting the costs of that appeal then it will be clear where the blame for that lies.

Peter Clarke

Littleworth

'We will work with people'

SIR - Through your letters page Joe Amos questioned the way that the Green Party votes at council.

We vote on each issue according to the merits of its case, weighing up the likely effects on local residents as well as the wider community.

Sometimes we vote with Labour, sometimes with the Conservatives but most decisions in local government are not party political and on many issues we often work together on an all-party basis.

For example, we voted with Labour to stop the privatisation of the bin services but we voted with the Conservatives in introducing the committee system that allows all the parties to have a say in running the council.

We worked together with the other parties to reach a unanimous decision in last year’s budget to invest in solar panels as well as measures to improve the insulation of the Guildhall. Joe mentions ‘recorded votes’, but the Conservatives only call for recorded or named votes on the votes they think they are going to lose!

This is a local city council; many issues are uncontroversial and in reality hundreds of decisions are voted through on a cross-party basis.

We will continue to work with all parties to stand up for Worcester residents and we will continue to do our best to change the often tribal, adversarial, macho and negative culture that has existed in the council for many years.

Cllr Louis Stephen

Battenhall Ward

'Failed by the justice system'

Sir - I was involved a few years ago in leafleting and demonstrations in Staffordshire , to bring a paedophile gang to justice after incompetent officialdom.

Following the gang’s arrest, trial, acquittal, retrial and conviction. some were sent secretly to Worcester crown court.

I was present for their sentencing.

The leader of the gang received a 22 year sentence for his role in pimping out 13 year old girls over 50 times per week for 2 years.

He upset the judge by showing no remorse and smirking in court at the relatives.

I was angry to learn that he’s been released after 5 years, didn’t do his 22years.

This makes a mockery of the justice system.

It’s time the justice system was looked at in cases like this.

He’s allowed to return to his home, while his 13 year old victims and families have “life sentences” due to the gang’s crimes.

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here